This post is seriously tl;dr. Sorry about that.
I disagree with your assertion; please, back up your claims with real rhetoric rather than mere contradiction! Why couldn't the foundations of atheism inform the question of origins? Considering that no human has had direct memorable experience of "Origins"--not of birth, not of the origin of the species, not the origin of the planet, and certainly not of the universe--I see no way that one can know "Origins" and have that inform their universal worldview.
It doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter if you agree or disagree TeslaNick, without foundational substantiation for your opinion of said word view, it (that word view) is Ã¢â‚¬Å“Faith-BasedÃ¢â‚¬Â. And the lack of direct memorable experience of "Origins" further proves the point.
Instead, one must arrive at a framework for understanding the universe more generally, and then derive the answer for "Origins" (whatever origin that may be) from that framework. Christians, I assume, take on the ideological framework defined by the bible for more reasons than just Genesis--I hear the whole forgiven sins is a popular reason--but when one investigates what the bible has to say about the origin of the universe, it is rather explicit. In this way, the framework implies the origin, rather than the other way around.
In you above paragraph, you attempt to side step the issue by referring to what Christians believe. This in no way touches the OP questions. If you want to discuss what Christians believe, open another thread and we can discuss it there.
If I might address the meta features of this thread for a moment, I have some comments regarding the overall nature of your replies. Before I do so, I should say that I don't wish this to turn into a discussion about "tone," as such things rank quite low on the disagreement heirarchy. With that out of the way:
Thanks Nick, I love links like this.
I've been reviewing this thread, and it seems like you're fishing for some response like a lawyer in a cross examination. I believe this answer is, "I don't know" on the part of a well-meaning atheist who is attempting to answer your questions.
No fishing, or cross examination Nick, just two simple questions that wipe away the dross of equivocation, and get to the root of the matter. And, as I stated in the OP, saying Ã¢â‚¬Å“I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t knowÃ¢â‚¬Â is a perfectly acceptable answer. Unless you further equivocate with an attempt at back door escape clause. If you go back and read the Op posting, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll soon realize this.
3- If you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know, simply say Ã¢â‚¬Å“I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t knowÃ¢â‚¬Â! But, understand, in saying so, you give up all right to say (for example) Ã¢â‚¬Å“there is no GodÃ¢â‚¬Â; because you said Ã¢â‚¬Å“I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t knowÃ¢â‚¬Â. This includes making statements like (for example) Ã¢â‚¬Å“there is no evidence for God, therefore there is no GodÃ¢â‚¬Â because; you said Ã¢â‚¬Å“I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t knowÃ¢â‚¬Â. If you do attempt such, you are equivocating.
This is evidenced by your posts that harp on the "equivocation" angle--despite the blatant misuse of the term--or those posts that dismiss responses that operate according to assumptions you reject, without providing reasons why you reject them (my own previous post, for example). For example, without any reason why my own response isn't good enough, I have no clear way to defend my position.
You attempt at equivocation in the above just further strengthens the stance of the OP questions. You cannot answer them within the rules of the OP. The questions were simple, succinct and to the point (with emphasis to drive the point home):
Questions: From where did we come (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?
Now, you didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even attempt to answer the first one, and drove straight to the second one without the slightest evidence (other than opinion) as your source.
5- If you are going to make any assertions to support your argument, insure they are factual assertions, not simply opinion. Otherwise you are equivocating.
I suspect that the reason you're doing this is that you would like to hold this statement of "I don't know" over their head as a rhetorical cudgel in the name of a theistic universe, or perhaps to force atheism into an equivalency with theism. If that's the kind of discussion you want to have, be explicit about it. Let us have a discussion about the equivalency of theism and atheism. But let us cease playing word games and dance around getting nowhere.
I suspect you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have answers to either question, and therefore find yourself in a quandary because you know you Ã¢â‚¬Å“donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t knowÃ¢â‚¬Â, and you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t like the implications of not knowing, which makes me wonder about your stated world view in this forum. Having said that, it is nothing more than my observed opinion, and nothing more.
If you wish to start your own thread on anything, please feel free. But you have shown that you cannot do anything but equivocate in this one.
An explicit discussion sure beats writing a response in good faith only to have it rejected in two sentences without any supporting statements. An hour of contemplation and 20 minutes of writing is dismissed with a five minute response; this is a process which is not conducive to healthy debate.
A healthy debate starts with adherence to the debate rules (in this case, the OP rules), honesty, and further Ã¢â‚¬Å“This above all Ã¢â‚¬â€ to thine own self be trueÃ¢â‚¬Â. A cursory reading of the OP rules and questions would have saved you much typing.
P.S. Your own advice would be good advice for you in this OP as well:
If you choose not to address points made by an author whose tone you disagree with, you may do so. Just say as much.